DOCSLIB.ORG

MISSISSIPPI RIVER Gerry Galloway1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MISSISSIPPI RIVER Gerry Galloway1 WMO/GWP Associated Programme on Flood Management USA: FLOOD MANAGEMENT - MISSISSIPPI RIVER Gerry Galloway1 Abstract. Comprehensive information is provided on approaches and experience in flood management for the Mississippi basin. Of interest are the changes to mix of structural and non- structural elements gradually being combined with other water resources activities in an integrated and comprehensive approach to basin water resources management, and the establishment of the national flood insurance programme 1. Location 1.1 The Mississippi Basin occupies the center section of the contiguous 48 states of the United States. From its headwaters in upper Minnesota, the Mississippi runs 3,700 km to its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico, some 145 km below New Orleans, Louisiana. Its drainage basin is the fourth largest in the world, with over 360,000 km2, and includes 41% of the contiguous US (portions of 31 states) and parts of two Canadian provinces. Its tributaries include the second and third largest rivers in the US, as well as numerous smaller, yet still imposing rivers. Flood-prone areas in the basin are found adjacent to the Mississippi and its tributaries, with the largest flood-prone region found in the 90,650 km2 Lower Mississippi River Valley. This valley varies in width from 32 km to 129 km across, with an average width of 73 km. Many cities were built along its banks; they range in population from 3 million in the Minneapolis-St Paul metropolitan area and in New Orleans, to under 50,000 in smaller cities like Vicksburg. All or parts of these are located in the floodplain, subject to floods or a flood threat since settlement. Industry is present in, and adjacent to the major cities. Agriculture is a major element in the economy of 10 states through which the river flows. The river and the land adjacent to it provide important habitat for fish and wildlife, with the Mississippi providing the largest and longest continuous system of wetlands in the US. Finally, the river constitutes an important navigation system for national and international waterborne commerce. 2. Nature of floods Floods have been part of the earliest recorded history of the Mississippi. Significant floods result from regional rainfall and snowmelt events that cause slow raises on rivers and extend for days or weeks. Due to the influence of tributary flows the magnitude of flooding increases moving downstream to the mouth. Short, intense rainfall events can cause flash floods or quick rise and fall floods on the tributaries but do not normally affect the main stem. About 11 significant flood events and flood damages occurred on the Mississippi between 1849 and 2001, with catastrophic flooding in 1927, 1936, 1973 and 1993. The 1927 event on the Lower Mississippi devastated the levee protection system and resulted in flooding of over 67,340 km2 of land, displaced more than 600,000 people from their homes, took over 200 lives and cost over USD 10 billion (in 1998 dollars). The flood in 1993 reached disaster2 proportions in the upper Mississippi and Missouri basins. Thirty-eight deaths were attributed directly to the flood; estimates of damages ranged from USD 12 to 20 billion and over 6.6 million acres were flooded. Agriculture accounted for over half of these damages, and more than 100,000 homes were damaged. Flood response and recovery operations cost more than USD 6 billion. 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; International Joint Commission - Canada/USA 2 When a natural or human induced event is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of a state or local government, it is designated by the President of the United States as disaster 1 WMO/GWP Associated Programme on Flood Management 3. Flood management and mitigation strategies For over two centuries, structural measures dominated the US response to flooding. The founders of New Orleans began to erect local levees in the early 1700’s to protect against floods. Over- bank flow was a natural occurrence in the bottomlands and alluvial valleys of the river, but only became a problem as settlement occurred along the river and within the floodplains. Thus the principal, and frequently only, approach to flood damage reduction was the construction of levees. The flood of 1927 on the Lower Mississippi brought national attention to the need for federal involvement in flood damage reduction. The 1928 plan for the Lower Mississippi focused on development of a basin-wide approach with levee strengthening and added use of floodways, cut- offs, and increased attention to channel improvement and stabilization work so as to speed floodwaters to their ultimate destination. Tributary reservoirs were added in subsequent years. The 1936 flood prompted Government to assume responsibility for flood control throughout the nation, again with a clear structural focus. Concurrent with the expansion of the above structural measures, federal efforts were under-way to preserve eroding lands and reduce runoff by holding water on upstream lands. At the same time, upland and floodplain wetlands were converted to agricultural and urban use. As a result, on the upper Mississippi and its tributaries, levees and floodwalls provide the bulk of the flood protection. Flood storage reservoirs exist on the tributaries to provide protection, primarily to communities on the tributaries. They are complemented by over 1600 km of local and private levees. Federal projects were individually approved and constructed. However, since the 1993 flood a comprehensive plan for the upper Mississippi River is now under development. In the Lower Mississippi Valley the bulk of the protection is also structural but has been put in place under a comprehensive plan developed in 1928 and implemented and modified over the succeeding years. The plan includes over 2500 km of levees and floodwalls, channel stabilization and four major floodways, and tributaries are controlled by upstream flood storage reservoirs. In the mid 1950’s, initial proposals were made for the use of also non-structural measures to reduce flood damages and a slow movement in that direction began. In 1969, Government instituted the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which combines subsidized flood insurance with requirement for participating communities to regulate land use in the floodplain. Currently, 20%-30% of those floodplain residents eligible for insurance participate in the program. Some floodplain zoning has taken place as a result of community participation in the NFIP. Flood notification systems have been in use for decades to inform and warn the public about the threat of flooding The evolution of attention to environmental factors in water resources development brought increased focus on the need to include preservation and protection of the environment in plans for flood damage reduction. Following the 1993 flood Government increased its support of relocation activities. State and federal governments and private organizations have voluntarily acquired several hundred thousand acres of frequently flooded agricultural lands from willing sellers. These now serve as flood storage areas. Increased attention in planning is given to upland wetland restoration and improvement of farming practices. Federal funding support is now provided for farmers to voluntarily place land in conservation reserve to provide habitat and flood storage. Flood management structural and non-structural measures have over the years prevented significant flood damages. However, annual flood losses in the US continue to increase (currently estimated at USD 6 billion), representing a four-fold increase over the last century. Encroachment on the floodplain and upstream development and land conversion continue to increase floodplain occupant vulnerability. There is still need for a comprehensive legislation offered to address the flood challenge. 4. Flood and water management instruments 2 WMO/GWP Associated Programme on Flood Management The federal Government provides a vast array data collection, storage and dissemination in support of integrated flood management. Amongst these, the US Geological Survey (USGS) provides baseline information on national water resources and operation of gauging stations on most US rivers. There are 84 sites on the lower Mississippi and its tributaries and 406 on the upper Mississippi and its tributaries (not including the Ohio and Missouri). The Corps of Engineers also remotely operates and monitors selected gauges in the Mississippi basin for use in water control activities. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) makes weather and flood stage forecasts as well as historic data available. The largest allocation of federal resources to support integrated flood management is made annually to the Corps for conduct of its activities on the river and within this, the majority is directed to the lower river project activities for various purposes. Additional funds are provided to the information and data agencies such as the USGS and NOAA, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which supports flood mitigation activities such as relocations, advanced preparation for floods and flood insurance, and to the resource agencies of the Department of Interior which provide advice to the Corps on flood management. States and communities also provide resources to support flood management and the development of both structural and non-structural projects. For the most part, state efforts are directed to coordination of local
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lesson 4: Sediment Deposition and River Structures
    LESSON 4: SEDIMENT DEPOSITION AND RIVER STRUCTURES ESSENTIAL QUESTION: What combination of factors both natural and manmade is necessary for healthy river restoration and how does this enhance the sustainability of natural and human communities? GUIDING QUESTION: As rivers age and slow they deposit sediment and form sediment structures, how are sediments and sediment structures important to the river ecosystem? OVERVIEW: The focus of this lesson is the deposition and erosional effects of slow-moving water in low gradient areas. These “mature rivers” with decreasing gradient result in the settling and deposition of sediments and the formation sediment structures. The river’s fast-flowing zone, the thalweg, causes erosion of the river banks forming cliffs called cut-banks. On slower inside turns, sediment is deposited as point-bars. Where the gradient is particularly level, the river will branch into many separate channels that weave in and out, leaving gravel bar islands. Where two meanders meet, the river will straighten, leaving oxbow lakes in the former meander bends. TIME: One class period MATERIALS: . Lesson 4- Sediment Deposition and River Structures.pptx . Lesson 4a- Sediment Deposition and River Structures.pdf . StreamTable.pptx . StreamTable.pdf . Mass Wasting and Flash Floods.pptx . Mass Wasting and Flash Floods.pdf . Stream Table . Sand . Reflection Journal Pages (printable handout) . Vocabulary Notes (printable handout) PROCEDURE: 1. Review Essential Question and introduce Guiding Question. 2. Hand out first Reflection Journal page and have students take a minute to consider and respond to the questions then discuss responses and questions generated. 3. Handout and go over the Vocabulary Notes. Students will define the vocabulary words as they watch the PowerPoint Lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arkansas River Flood of June 3-5, 1921
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE 0ns SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 4$7 THE ARKANSAS RIVER FLOOD OF JUNE 3-5, 1921 BY ROBERT FOLLANS^EE AND EDWARD E. JON^S WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1922 i> CONTENTS. .Page. Introduction________________ ___ 5 Acknowledgments ___ __________ 6 Summary of flood losses-__________ _ 6 Progress of flood crest through Arkansas Valley _____________ 8 Topography of Arkansas basin_______________ _________ 9 Cause of flood______________1___________ ______ 11 Principal areas of intense rainfall____ ___ _ 15 Effect of reservoirs on the flood__________________________ 16 Flood flows_______________________________________ 19 Method of determination________________ ______ _ 19 The flood between Canon City and Pueblo_________________ 23 The flood at Pueblo________________________________ 23 General features_____________________________ 23 Arrival of tributary flood crests _______________ 25 Maximum discharge__________________________ 26 Total discharge_____________________________ 27 The flood below Pueblo_____________________________ 30 General features _________ _______________ 30 Tributary streams_____________________________ 31 Fountain Creek____________________________ 31 St. Charles River___________________________ 33 Chico Creek_______________________________ 34 Previous floods i____________________________________ 35 Flood of Indian legend_____________________________ 35 Floods of authentic record__________________________ 36 Maximum discharges
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration, a Natural Channel Design
    Stream Restoration Prep8AICI by the North Carolina Stream Restonltlon Institute and North Carolina Sea Grant INC STATE UNIVERSITY I North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T State University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. Contents Introduction to Fluvial Processes 1 Stream Assessment and Survey Procedures 2 Rosgen Stream-Classification Systems/ Channel Assessment and Validation Procedures 3 Bankfull Verification and Gage Station Analyses 4 Priority Options for Restoring Incised Streams 5 Reference Reach Survey 6 Design Procedures 7 Structures 8 Vegetation Stabilization and Riparian-Buffer Re-establishment 9 Erosion and Sediment-Control Plan 10 Flood Studies 11 Restoration Evaluation and Monitoring 12 References and Resources 13 Appendices Preface Streams and rivers serve many purposes, including water supply, The authors would like to thank the following people for reviewing wildlife habitat, energy generation, transportation and recreation. the document: A stream is a dynamic, complex system that includes not only Micky Clemmons the active channel but also the floodplain and the vegetation Rockie English, Ph.D. along its edges. A natural stream system remains stable while Chris Estes transporting a wide range of flows and sediment produced in its Angela Jessup, P.E. watershed, maintaining a state of "dynamic equilibrium." When Joseph Mickey changes to the channel, floodplain, vegetation, flow or sediment David Penrose supply significantly affect this equilibrium, the stream may Todd St. John become unstable and start adjusting toward a new equilibrium state.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Flooding
    Designed for safer living® Focus on Types of flooding Designed for safer living® is a program endorsed by Canada’s insurers to promote disaster-resilient homes. About the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR), established in 1997, is a world-class centre for multidisciplinary disaster prevention research and communication. ICLR is an independent, not-for-profit research institute founded by the insurance industry and affiliated with Western University, London, Ontario. The Institute’s mission is to reduce the loss of life and property caused by severe weather and earthquakes through the identification and support of sustained actions that improve society’s capacity to adapt to, anticipate, mitigate, withstand and recover from natural disasters. ICLR’s mandate is to confront the alarming increase in losses caused by natural disasters and to work to reduce deaths, injuries and property damage. Disaster damage has been doubling every five to seven years since the 1960s, an alarming trend. The greatest tragedy is that many disaster losses are preventable. ICLR is committed to the development and communication of disaster prevention knowledge. For the individual homeowner, this translates into the identification of natural hazards that threaten them and their home. The Institute further informs individual homeowners about steps that can be taken to better protect their family and their homes. Waiver The content of this publication is to be used as general information only. This publication does not replace advice from professionals. Contact a professional if you have questions about specific issues. Also contact your municipal government for information specific to your area.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document
    2001 Basin Plan Scoping Document Balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi In Minnesota Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document June 2001 balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota About BALMM A locally led alliance of land and water resource agencies has formed in order to coordinate efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. The Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) covers both the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, and includes a wide range of local, state and federal resource agencies. Members of the Alliance include Soil and Water Conservation District managers, county water planners, and regional staff of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota Extension, Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi River Citizen Commission, the Southeastern Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and others. BALMM meetings are open to all interested individuals and organizations. Existing staff from county and state agencies provide administrative, logistical and planning support. These include: Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore SWCD, Chair; Norman Senjem, MPCA-Rochester, Basin Coordinator; Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, Area 7 MASWCD Liaison; Bea Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water Resources Board Liaison. This Basin Plan Scoping Document is the fruit of a year-long effort by participants in BALMM. Environmental Goals, Geographic Management Strategies and Land-Use Strategies were developed by either individual BALMM members or strategy teams. An effort was made to involve those who will implement the strategies in developing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Final Draft
    FINAL DRAFT Dayton Valley Development Guidelines Supplement to the Dayton Valley Area Drainage Master Plan prepared for August Lyon County | Storey County | 2019 Carson Water Subconservancy District i FINAL DRAFT Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 More Frequent Flooding ....................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Larger Flood Peaks ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.3 Scour and Erosion ................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.4 Flow Diversion ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.5 Flow Concentration ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1.6 Expanded Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 3 1.1.7 Reduced Surface Storage ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.8 Decreased Ground Water Recharge ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Severe Weather Safety Guide Flash Flooding
    What causes River Flooding? Stay informed! • Persistent storms over the same area for long Listen to NOAA Weather Radio, local radio or Severe periods of time. television for the latest weather and river forecasts. • Combined rainfall and snowmelt • Ice jams Weather • Releases from man made lakes • Excessive rain from tropical systems making Safety landfall. How does the NWS issue To check out the latest river forecast information Guide and current stages on our area rivers, visit: Flood/Flash Flood Warnings? http://weather.gov/pah/ahps Flash Check out the National Weather Service Paducah website for the latest information at Flooding weather.gov/paducah Call for the latest forecast from the National Weather Service’s Weather Information Now number: Paducah, KY: 270-744-6331 Evansville, IN: 812-425-5549 National Weather Service forecasters rely on a A reference guide from your network of almost 10,000 gages to monitor the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration height of rivers and streams across the Nation. National Weather Service National Weather Service This gage data is only one of many different 8250 Kentucky Highway 3520 Paducah, Kentucky sources for data. Forecasters use data from the Doppler Radar, surface weather observations, West Paducah, KY 42086 snow melt/cover information and many other 270-744-6440 different data sources in order to monitor the threat for flooding. FLOODS KILL MORE PEOPLE FACT: Almost half of all flash flood Flooding PER YEAR THAN ANY OTHER fatalities occur in vehicles. WEATHER PHENOMENAN. fatalities occur in vehicles. Safety • As little as 6 inches of water may cause you to lose What are Flash Floods ? control of your vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin
    1 Response to RFI for Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) Network 2012 Lower Mississippi River Basin Abstract: The Lower Mississippi River Basin (LMRB) is a key 2-digit HUC watershed comprised of highly productive and diverse agricultural and natural ecosystems lying along the lower reaches of the largest river in North America. The alluvial plain within the LMRB is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States, particularly for rice, cotton, corn and soybeans. The LMRB accounts, for example, for a quarter of total U.S. cotton and two-thirds of total U.S. rice production. The 7.1 million irrigated acres of the LMRB cover a larger percentage (>10%) of the entire land area of the basin than for any other two-digit HUC in the country and the basin is second only to California in total groundwater pumped for irrigation. The LMRB is therefore one of the most intensively developed regions for irrigated agriculture in the country. This region is the hydrologic gateway to the Gulf of Mexico and thus links the agricultural practices of the LMRB and the runoff and sediment/nutrient loads from the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio basins with the Gulf ecosystem. While the natural and agricultural ecosystems of the LMRB are each of national significance, they are also intimately inter-connected, for example, the intensive agricultural irrigation along the alluvial plain has resulted in rapidly declining water tables. Changes in stream hydrology due to declining base-flow combined with the water quality impacts of agriculture make the LMRB a tightly-coupled agro-ecosystem with national significance and thus an ideal addition to the LTAR network.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Compact, 1922
    Colorado River Compact, 1922 The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, page 171), and the Acts of the Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed as their Commissioners: W.S. Norviel for the State of Arizona, W.F. McClure for the State of California, Delph E. Carpenter for the State of Colorado, J.G. Scrugham for the State of Nevada, Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico, R.E. Caldwell for the State of Utah, Frank C. Emerson for the State of Wyoming, who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles: ARTICLE I The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Canal Corporation Flood Warning and Optimization System
    K19-10283720JGM New York State Canal Corporation Flood Warning and Optimization System SCOPE OF SERVICES K19-10283720JGM Contents 1 Background of the Project........................................................................................................... 3 2 Existing FWOS features ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Data Import Interfaces ............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Numeric Models ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Hydrologic Model............................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Hydraulic Model .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Data Dissemination Interfaces .................................................................................................. 6 3 Technical Landscape ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Software ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Systems......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 FWOS Software ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study
    Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Upper Susquehanna Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Study Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office Cortland, New York Preparers: Anne Secord & Andy Lowell New York Field Office Supervisor: David Stilwell February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flooding in the Upper Susquehanna watershed of New York State frequently causes damage to infrastructure that has been built within flood-prone areas. This report identifies a suite of watershed activities, such as urban development, wetland elimination, stream alterations, and certain agricultural practices that have contributed to flooding of developed areas. Structural flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and floodwalls have been constructed, but are insufficient to address all floodwater-human conflicts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a number of new structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the “local sponsor” for this study and provides half of the study funding. New structural flood control measures that USACE is evaluating for the watershed largely consist of new levees/floodwalls, rebuilding levees/floodwalls, snagging and clearing of woody material from rivers and removing riverine shoals. Non-structural measures being evaluated include elevating structures, acquisition of structures and property, relocating at-risk structures, developing land use plans and flood proofing. Some of the proposed structural measures, if implemented as proposed, have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. In addition to the alternatives currently being considered by the USACE, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Major Drainage Basins
    HUC 8 HYDROLOGIC UNIT NAME CLINTON 04120101 Chautauqua-Conneaut FRANKLIN 04150409 CHAMPLAIN MASSENA FORT COVINGTON MOOERS ST LAWRENCE CLINTON 04120102 Cattaraugus BOMBAY WESTVILLE CONSTABLE CHATEAUGAY NYS Counties & BURKE LOUISVILLE 04120103 Buffalo-Eighteenmile BRASHER 04150308 CHAZY ALTONA ELLENBURG BANGOR WADDINGTON NORFOLK MOIRA 04120104 Niagara ESSEX MALONE DEC Regions JEFFERSON 6 04150307 BEEKMANTOWN MADRID 05010001 Upper Allegheny LAWRENCE BELLMONT STOCKHOLM DANNEMORA BRANDON DICKINSON PLATTSBURGH LEWIS OGDENSBURG CITY LISBON 05010002 Conewango 5 PLATTSBURGH CITY HAMILTON POTSDAM SCHUYLER FALLS SARANAC 05010004 French WARREN OSWEGATCHIE DUANE OSWEGO 04150306 PERU 04130001 Oak Orchard-Twelvemile CANTON PARISHVILLE ORLEANS WASHINGTON NIAGARA DE PEYSTER ONEIDA MORRISTOWN HOPKINTON WAVERLY PIERREPONT FRANKLIN 04140101 Irondequoit-Ninemile AUSABLE MONROE WAYNE BLACK BROOK FULTON SARATOGA DEKALB HERKIMER BRIGHTON GENESEE SANTA CLARA CHESTERFIELD 04140102 Salmon-Sandy ONONDAGA NYS Major 04150406 MACOMB 04150304 HAMMOND ONTARIO MADISON MONTGOMERY RUSSELL 04150102 Chaumont-Perch ERIE SENECA CAYUGA SCHENECTADY HERMON WILLSBORO ST ARMAND WILMINGTON JAY WYOMING GOUVERNEUR RENSSELAER ALEXANDRIA CLARE LIVINGSTON YATES 04130002 Upper Genesee OTSEGO ROSSIE COLTON CORTLAND ALBANY ORLEANS 04150301 04150404 SCHOHARIE ALEXANDRIA LEWIS 7 EDWARDS 04150408 CHENANGO FOWLER ESSEX 04130003 Lower Genesee 8 TOMPKINS CLAYTON SCHUYLER 9 4 THERESA 04150302 TUPPER LAKE HARRIETSTOWN NORTH ELBA CHAUTAUQUA CATTARAUGUS PIERCEFIELD 02050104 Tioga ALLEGANY STEUBEN
    [Show full text]